obligated to a 20% reduction on all the bill, including energy? >> yes, pg&e is required under state statute as implemented by the california puc to include a 20% discount for customers enrolled in their rate payer assistance program. the board -- we had anticipated including the same 20% discount off the generation component of the rate, the part we are responsible for under clean power sf. the board made that a directive in the amendments. the board also told us unless we are able to equalize the rate impact on low income customers that we should not include them in the first phases of the

program. we are, as mr. kelly mentioned, we are not including low income customers in phase i. the overall 20% requirement is applied to the bill. to the electric portion of pg&e's bill. so low income customers will receive that benefit from pg&e, as required, and from us for the generation component of the bill. >> do they get it twice? >> it is applied to two separate components of the bill, yes. >> on the energy component, if we are providing the energy, we give them 20% on the energy. does pg&e also give 2% on the energy? >> not to my knowledge. i can double-check that. it is 20% on the portion pg&e is billing them for. >> so the transmission, then. >> transmission, distribution. the pg&e component. >> serves as a bill. they will not get energy

from pg&e. >> that makes sense but the way it was written, it was unclear whether there would be a double -- >> which would be great. i'm not sure if that is anybody's intent. if you can verify that, that would be helpful. >> you will hear more about the rate particulars as it goes through the rate fairness board process. that is where the rate issues are at this point. then we will bring it to you after we have their advice. >> okay, yes. >> can i ask one more question about -- you know, without removing it from the consent calendar, but on the contract. so on the outreach -- >> we are going to be taking that off the consent calendar. >> and discussing it? >> yes. >> i can wait. >> we have had a request for that. anything else? any public comment?

>> afternoon commissioners, joshua arsa. today wearing the hat of a commissioner over at the commission on the environment. and great to see you general manager kelly in that seat there. excited. so the one remark on clean power is let p.u.c. know we passed a resolution at our commission, i have copies to pass out. one of the things we were excited about -- i didn't see in it the staff report online but did see it here. can i just -- thanks. but i did hear somewhat of a reference in the presentation is for your reference we are excited over at the department of the environment at the commission on the environment, especially because we have a founding member at the puc, but we added specifically on the floor, so to speak, this final further resolved about the sf commission on the environment urging our

department on environment staff to partner with the san francisco public utility commission to create comprehensive education and outreach in effort to ensure broad understanding of and broad participation in the program. we are really excited about doing that. we are still working on the state of our joint meeting. we had to move it. one of our most seasoned veterans on the commission, joanna wilde was out of town. we are working with the chair and secretary hood. i would like to say we would like to get that conversation going. we have a program called environment now. it is a great program. we recruit in low income communities of color. we have approximately 70% local hire participation. it is an outreach program for the stuff we do. it is about 30% to 40% residents of the southeast environmental justice neighborhoods that. is something we'd want to get pluged in with sfpuc as soon as possible. one other question, because we are trying to answer it

at our commission, a question that's come up. we have talked a lot about the board's concerns that the staff presentation had highlighted around the board's concerns, but we know the mayor said let's move forward with the program. he didn't sign or didn't veto the legislation. we are wondering if there are any thoughts the mayor expressed about going forward for your department and ours and maybe your commission knows it because we have been trying to find out as well. so excited, thanks. >> thank you. >> mr. brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioner. eric burkes representing san francisco green party and local grassroots organization, our city. to back up what commissioner arsay said, the advocates are concerned about this issue of making sure the public is well informed about what they are doing including non english speakers because the last thing we would want is to get this clean

energy program off the ground that alienates and turns people off. that would be tragic and mean the overall uptick into a program would be much smaller and threaten the entire program. though advocates are pushing to solve the climate crisis we are mindful it is not helpful to not reach out well to the public. a quick note on the opt-in, opt-out issue, the reason this was created as an opt-out -- barbara sort of touched on this -- is that it is kind of like politicians. i'm sure all of you have watched city hall. when the mayor appoints someone to the board of supervisors and they run for reelection it is quite frankly easier to get the public to say oh well, you know, i have seen them in action for at least a few months. i'm comfortable with this. i guessly stick with it. when you have an -- if it were just an opt-in, if we were to get the state to

switch that and pg&e would inevitably spend several million at least in san francisco scaring people away from doing such a proactive opt-in, it would make it difficult to make enough people in the program to make it economically viable. what we want to do is make it an opt out but do aggressive communication to make sure the people that stay in the program know about it and want to be in it and are excited about it. then just to finish up, i want to get back again to the local build-out. the advocates are not only pushing for that local build-out as codified in the resolution that passed the board -- at the board of supervisors because it is great and green, but also because it is crucial to the economics of the program. one of the amendments the board passed was that -- was directing the sfpuc to try to work in this initial

bond -- this initial setaside that goes to make shell whole in case there is a problem into customer rates over time. and so the buildout work should be done around spring. we will be ready to release rfps. at that point we will be able to see the long-term economics of publicly owned and customer owned renewables and efficiency that will give us future revenues that we can apply to that rate structure to make it better, so people will be much more attracted to the program. we believe that we can even get better prices close to the -- in the first phase to the customer so that they like the program because it costs a little less than we expected. so make sure when we do the rate setting you consider that is the worst case scenario and we actually need to try to use that build-out plan to get those rates and long-term rates down so people will be more excited about it.

thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, david pilpal. this program is obviously complicated. i very much appreciate the commission's discussion and future discussions on making this work. i had not seen that map before either. i was very interested by it. i'm glad we will have more detailed reports prior to the ultimate question of whether it is ready to go. i'm kind of wondering out loud if the first phase -- and i'm interested in how the phasing works -- if it is just geographic or demographic or some blend because i heard about high income, low income neighborhood, precincts, that sort of thing. i don't know how much discretion one has in designing the phases, so perhaps as part of the next report we could hear more

about that with the map attached in some detail. i'm interested in the rate setting process. i love the rate fairness board and looking forward to their fun meets toing discuss this. but i'm also not sure if the rate setting for this particular endeavor, which i guess has to comply with the charter, whatever. ab125. and other requirements so that we are fiscally prudent but whether that also has to prop 218 requirements. i don't know if it does or doesn't. i guess i'm seeing that it doesn't. cost of service and reserve. so i think the rate setting is going to be interesting and a little challenging in ways we haven't seen before because it is not just here is our cost of water, here is our -- but there are

real design opportunities for how the rates are set that are conservation oriented, et cetera, et cetera. i'm sure that will play out in the next few months. we will see how that all goes, thank you. >> thank you. mr. jensen. >> thank you, art jensen with boss. i want to go back to the first item under the general manager's report. congratulations again, i'm sorry i couldn't be here at the first meeting. i was pleased with commissioner caen's commission in terms of over sight. i would like to speak to this. we anticipate answering questions on behalf of people holding us accountable for watching what you are doing. we take that charge seriously. this is what we have done in the past. probably not a surprise for you. what we don't do is a technical review. we have technical experts, you are paying for those,

we are paying you to pay for those. that all -- it is already done. what we look at are procedural questions and management questions. for instance recognizing -- first of all it should be said that this was identified because it was a safety issue. the construction contractor saw the problem. that is because they are trying to protect not only their business and work but also their workers. i think if commissioner courtney were here he would appreciate knowing that. that is where it originated. >> he is the empty chair here. [ laughter] >> yes. i'm not going to do my impersonation of clint eastwood. but one of the questions is should the problem have been anticipated, recognized, discovered beforehand? if so, why not. in other words, were sufficient borings taken of the hillside, should more have been taken. they should have, why

weren't they. has appropriate and timely action been taken since the problem was recognized? in other words, did things happen swiftly. were the right kinds of people brought on urgently and quickly to identify the problems, solutions and ways to mitigate potential impacts on not only construction safety but also costs and schedule. has ultimately at some point has liability for any failed opportunities or decisions been adequately pursued. issues have come up and we have tracked this. we are working with your staff. today we are pleased with the way they have gone about things, the swiftness in which they mobilized and took action. this is unfolding. we will continue to track that. as in the past if we have any recommendations for the commission to consider, we will present those to you. i just want you to know there was another set of

eyes looking, thank you. >> mr. jensen, you remind me we have a copy of letter from bosca to the state legislature making three specific requests. i will want to discuss that. probably in our next meeting with julie here and yourself. you have your report coming out. i would like to go through those very specific to your request and consideration of each of those. any other public comment on the general manager's report? seeing none, mr. general manager, do you have anything else for us? >> that concludes my first report. >> thank you. it was a lot longer than the last. if you would call consent. >> 8a, approve contract 41 for not to exceed of $5 million to lowest qualified

responsible and responsive bidder, your be a buena construction incorporated. * accept work by j & b incorporated for wd2556 and authorize final payment to contractor. approve selection of davis and associates, agreement cs-227 and authorize general manage tore execute general services agreement with with davis and associates with amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for five years. d, approve and authorize general manage tore execute revokable permit to the beautification association. >> we have a request item 8c be removed for discussion. any other items to be removed? seeing none, could i have a motion on items 8a, b and d. moved and seconded.

all in favor, aye. item carries. item 8c. mr. pilpal. >> david pilpal. with regard to this item i have no objection to the recommended contractor. i just had a couple points here. this is a not to exceed amount so i hope we don't spend all of this money in this way. i think we have done well over the last few years by having as much of the marketing and customer education community outreach activities be done by staff rather than consultants. there was a choice made some years ago to hire more folks essentially on tyrone's team than do this with outside contractors. so i hope we will limit the work that goes to this contractor to just those things that the staff is

not particularly good at for whatever reason. tv production, whatever. in fact, some of those things could be done through sfgtv, perhaps. i think as much as possible things should be done by staff and not contractors. the other point i wanted to make is there was discussion earlier this year. maybe even last year at the civil service commission on the scope of the approval to go outside on this work. and consistent with commissioner arsay's comments that the department and environment has the environment now team that. portion that really is door-to-door would be more appropriate for the environment new staff, which are more directly supervised by city folks. really are entry level opportunities and don't en counter the sort of overhead that -- working through a contractor would get through this piece.

i really hope this work is really, as i say, just focused on that work that staff can't do well and does support the overall programs. i hope those communities are taken in the constructive manner that they are offered in. >> thank you. commissioner, did you have questions? >> yeah, i had -- i concur mostly with those comments you said. what i would like to see it, reiterating what we asked barbara hale for is a real plan and consultant to come forward with what exactly they will be doing. seems like one of the first pieces of work is in phase i is really to figure out how we will reach the low hanging fruit, so to speak. there is also a lot of work to reach the low income communities, multilingual issues, how to activate the environment now team,

resources and how to supplement. i would hope in moving this forward is this consultant come up with exactly what the plan is with the hopes we wouldn't have to spend all this because of internal resources or because they are so great and efficient at what they do. so that is what i wanted to say. also i wanted to say that i'm hoping that the scope is really going to include all these pieces we have talked about because i think it is a different set of communication strategies that are going to need to be employed. everything from the translations piece to door-to-door piece. there are a lot of pieces that need to happen to make this successful and respond to mr. brooks. we really want to set this up to success and not create any negative image around this. i think out of the gate it has to be positive. i think we should look to this consulting firm to make sure this program

succeeds from that perspective. >> thank you. any other commission comment? any other public comment sm >> eric brooks representing the green party and local roots organization, our city. i would concur with commissioner vitor and mr. pilpal that we need a plan. we need to see what the 1.4 million is used for. i confess i don't know anything about this company hired but apparently it's been used for a long time. i'm sure they have expertise. i would say this is very important. we have identified areas where people are interested in this. now we need to do marketing and outreach in a very professional way by using a firm that is used to that as its main job.

we need to make sure we get hold of customers in those areas, showing them why this is so great, why it is worth it for them to pay a little more to get clean energy. not because it is good for environment but long-term they will get a better economic deal out of this. there are things added at the board of supervisors and were already in the plan for reaching out to customers and proactively giving community choice clean power sf customers access to energy efficiency funds and renewable facility installation that is funded through the program so that actually will help bring down their long-term bill as well. because at the same time they are opting to pay more on their energy resource bill, they will also get an

opportunity to get energy efficiency in the same place, which might make it possible for us to convince some of the lower income folks to opt in at the beginning. there are all kind of possibilities there, we need a firm that knows how to do this. not only do research but take that research and reach out to customers to make this exciting to them. one thing that -- i don't know if this firm will do this or not. local power and buildout has been talking about -- looks like will it probably be part of the mix. offering people shares and clean power sf, just the way that the bill that didn't pass at the state level that was going to offer people an easier way to get solar shares. this would be shares for everything. solar, wind, efficiency. the whole clean power sf program. that is going to require specific outreach to customers to offer them the share idea so that they are

opting into a program that definitely will save them long-term, because they are becoming shareholders. that means even if they don't have a rooftop they can get involved or a wind source they can get involved. that is why this is so important. >> thank you, mr. brooks. any public comment? seeing none -- >> i have a comment. >> sorry, commissioner. >> i don't disagree with anything that's been said. somehow i feel there has to be a marriage with that map that we saw today. the studies we have already done before we go into a contract like this. i would like to see where we are. i would like to see what the plan is. i feel we are going off and

we are getting a consultant, david -- without really having a plan within our institution that we agree with. i think we are capable of that. i would like to see that before we branch out. i would like to see what our vision is and what we have to do. >> could i do the -- so one of the things that as you may know, or may not know, it takes about six months to do a contract. so the purpose of this is we know we need expertise in doing outreach and campaigning and really getting the message out. we hired, we felt, the best firm at that time that can provide that service if this does pass. the thought is we engage

them to identify what would be a robust plan that would guarantee success. once we identify roles and responsibilities, then we can move forward quickly. if we waited to that time and hired a firm to do those gaps, it would take six months. that was sort of why we basically moved forward on this contract and try to get the team in place. if there are added expertise we need that's not on the team, we can always go through a process to add additional resources to the team to help us meet those needs. that is why i would like to maybe initially get them involved in working with all the stake holders and see what the best plan is. identify rolls and responsibility. then we can come back and say how much we will do, the department of

environment will do, consultants will do and why. >> does that have an amount of money attached to it? >> the total amount is 1.5 -- >> what i was wondering is -- you talked about using them really to come up with a more detailed scope. i'm wondering what portion of the total that would be. if it would be possible for contract to have -- or our provision that says after you have done initial work that you come back and approve the work going forward. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. i think given the dialogue here it makes sense to me, if you'd like for us to have a condition within your authorization that says after the plan is developed, we present it before we are authorized to keep going. i would expect that initial step to cost around $100,000. certainly not more than that.

then we can engage with davis and associates. talk with them about how we can knit our efforts together, the work of our partnering departments, the work we envision. then we can bring it as a package before we say yes you can keep going. like putting balance on reserve of the 1.4 million, if you are comfortable with that. >> in a perfect world that would be the best way to proceed. my way is timing. we are supposed to be -- you know, january, according to this time line, right, january is when we are supposed to begin notification of opt-out. i mean, that is -- what is that, two months away? so is it realistic we can get a plan, you know. $100,000 plan in the next month and say, okay. go ahead and do the work in

the next two months. that would be my concern. i agree it would be great. we should have a plan and better understanding of what this rollout will look like, the different phased approach is, a preenrollment strategy and this and that. i also understand we are a bit under the gun here. >> tyrone chu, director of communications. we plan to come back to go over the plan. since this is a not to exceed we can go forward with the contract, show you plan and what we have proposed over the next year. at that point we continue to execute the contract and additional services. the additional work is going to be first coming up with that scope, coming up with communications engagement plan through the next year. >> you would anticipate coming back to us for that when? >> we could try three, four months. we will update what the strategy will be so we can have a plan at that time. >> next month. >> yes.

commissioner caen. >> i think we should defer this particular contract to a later date. the reason being, i have been working on this project eight years. i have seen a lot of things come over my desk. i would like my fellow commissioners to see the very studies that you have done. not you personally but that have been done. i think that map is something we've never seen before. if i recall, that map doesn't coincide with the studies that we have seen. i'm very curious about that. i want to see it all in a package. you will disagree with me, but i'm just going by memory. it seems to me that the people that were in